azaer, that depends on whether you count Greenland. If you do, and most statistics do count it in area, then Denmark's number is pretty low, it's only 7 people per square mile (none of this boring metric crud, the US resisting the homogenization of the world's measuring systems into the most sterile, boring system ever, utterly disconnected from human reality, is one of the few things we do right), much less than even Norway's 35. Of course, that would mean the first panel doesn't make sense. So I think that the comment "compared to land mass" means "instead of land mass" not "relative to land mass," as that is the only way Denmark would be between Norway and Sweden in this analogy. It was confusingly worded, and I took it to mean population per square mile, too.
Apparently Iceland, Greenland, and Åland are practically eunuchs...
39
azaer, that depends on whether you count Greenland. If you do, and most statistics do count it in area, then Denmark's number is pretty low, it's only 7 people per square mile (none of this boring metric crud, the US resisting the homogenization of the world's measuring systems into the most sterile, boring system ever, utterly disconnected from human reality, is one of the few things we do right), much less than even Norway's 35. Of course, that would mean the first panel doesn't make sense. So I think that the comment "compared to land mass" means "instead of land mass" not "relative to land mass," as that is the only way Denmark would be between Norway and Sweden in this analogy. It was confusingly worded, and I took it to mean population per square mile, too.
Apparently Iceland, Greenland, and Åland are practically eunuchs...